Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 31:2 (2024) ► pp.142–165

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

‘What we found is’

Pseudo-clefts, cataphora, projection and cohesive chains

ORCiD logo with link | Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour
ORCiD logo with link | Augsburg Universität
 | Université de Lorraine
Published online: 15 July 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.23054.ber
Abstract
This paper examines two variants of the pseudo-cleft construction which display a WHAT-NP-VP-be pattern with the VP realised with cognitive verbs and the proform do in the context of spoken British English dyadic and multi-party BBC podcasts. It is based on the premise that the construction’s referencing potentials are both cataphoric and projective, and that depending on its contexts, one of the two referencing functions is foregrounded while the other is backgrounded. The analysis focuses on those linguistic features and contextual configurations which either contribute to its cataphoric referencing function, or which go beyond the local cataphoric referencing function and indicate its projective, discourse-organising function. The research is corpus-based and uses quantitative and qualitative methodologies, filtering out the linguistic features and contextual configurations which contribute to assigning the two variants the status of a projective construction with a discourse-organising function. The features under investigation are (1) the semantics of the constitutive NPs and VPs marking for tense, aspect and modality and their uptake in the discourse, (2) degrees of continuity and discontinuity in the cohesive chains triggered by the constitutive parts of the construction. The paper shows that when semantic continuity between the what-clause and what follows is discontinued and thus deferred, the construction’s projective function is foregrounded.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Cataphora and projection
    • 2.1Cataphora
    • 2.2Projection
    • 2.3The pseudo-cleft construction in discourse
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Semantics of the NP and cohesive chains of reference
    • 4.2Semantics of the VP and cohesive continuity
    • 4.3Distribution
  • 5.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (34)
References
Akmajian, Adrian. 1970. Aspects of the grammar of focus in English. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology PhD Thesis.
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 251. 7–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Projection and minimalistic syntax in interaction. Discourse Processes 461. 180–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berthe, Florine. 2021. De la clivée en th- à la structure the-N-is en anglais oral: Vers une lecture discursive, prosodique et dialogique. Metz: Université de Lorraine & Augsburg Universität PhD thesis.
Corminboeuf, Gilles & Anne-Sylvie Horlacher. 2016. La projection en macro-syntaxe et en linguistique interactionnelle: Dimensions théoriques et empiriques. Langue Francaise 192(4). 15–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Vera Demberg. 2020. When do we leave discourse relations underspecified? The effect of formality and relation type. Discours (online) 261. 3–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Das, Debopam & Markus Egg. 2023. Continuity in discourse relations. Functions of Language 301. 41–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita. 2017. Contrastive discourse relations in context: Evidence from monologic and dialogic editing tasks. In Rachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 269–292. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Discourse pragmatics: Communicative action meets discourse analysis. In Cornelia Ilie & Neal Norrick (eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces, 33–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaudy-Campbell, Isabelle, Héloïse Lechevallier-Parent & Vasilica Le Floch. 2016. Articulation topicale, référentielle et macrosyntaxique dans un discours oral. Modèles Linguistiques 731. 21–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2011. N be that-constructions in everyday German conversation: A reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. In Ritva Laury & Ryoko Suzuki (eds.), Subordination in conversation: A cross-linguistic perspective, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, Thierry. 2016. Projections programmatiques, entamées et potentielles dans l’écrit scientifique: L’attente dans une perspective de linguistique textuelle. Langue Française 192(4). 97–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Higgins, Francis. 1979. The pseudo-cleft construction in English. New York: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 2001. Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: Prototype or family resemblance? In Martin Pütz, Suzanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds.), Applied Cognitive Linguistics: Theory, acquisition, and language pedagogy, 109–129. Berlin: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. The openness of grammatical constructions. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 401. 153–175.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Sandra Thompson. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. In Ritva Laury (ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions, 99–123. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koops, Christian & Martin Hilpert. 2009. The co-evolution of syntactic and pragmatic complexity. In Talmy Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds.), Syntactic complexity: Diachrony, acquisition, cognition and neurology, 215–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lapaire, Jean-Rémi & Wilfrid Rotgé. 1991. Linguistique et grammaire de l’anglais. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lindström, Jan, Sofie Henricson & Martina Huhtamäki. 2022. Pseudo-cleft constructions in Swedish talk-in-interaction: Turn projection and discourse organization. Lingua 2651. e103167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, William & Sandra Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text 8(3). 243–281.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael & Simona Pekarek Doehler. 2022. Pseudo-cleft-like structures in Hebrew and French conversation: The syntax-lexicon-body interface. Lingua 2801. e103397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael, Jan Lindström & Elwys De Stefani. 2023. Pseudo-clefts: An interactional analysis across languages. Lingua 2911. e103538. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pekarek-Doehler, Simona. 2008. Organisation séquentielle et configurations syntaxiques de la parole-en-interaction. In Jacques Durand, Benoît Habert & Bernard Laks (eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française — CMLF'08, 789–802. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54(4). 883–906. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1980. Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4). 104–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 1995. On projection. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Social intelligence and interaction: Expressions and implications of the social bias in human intelligence, 87–110. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taboada, Maite. 2009. Implicit and explicit coherence relations. In Jan Renkema (ed.), Discourse, of course: An overview of research in discourse studies, 127–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weinert, Regina & Jim Miller. 1996. Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics 25(2). 173–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Henricson, Sofie & Jan Lindström
2025. Action formation, projection, and participation framework. In Grammar in Action [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 37], ► pp. 366 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue